Prev: Couldnt read MT8888
Next: S1D13700 Grayscale configuration
From: Paul Burke on 8 Aug 2005 09:57
Dave Dunfield wrote:

> I simply asked you to remove the modified copy of my example code
> from distribution because you have not only made it incompatible with
> my toolset, but you have made it require a competitors toolset. You
> failed to mention this in all of our previous correspondance.

It's totally reasonable for Dave to ask that HIS code be kept compatible
with the toolset he makes his living (partly) by selling. It's a
reminder that 'free' software, of whatever variety, actually represents
someone else's time and effort.

If you want to create an open- source filesystem, you'd best start with
something already open- source. There are a few around; you can probably
extract the requisite code from the Linux or FreeDOS source. And I'm
sure the work involved in porting it to an 8051 will not be trivial.

Paul Burke
From: Jim Stewart on 8 Aug 2005 11:50
Paul Burke wrote:
> Dave Dunfield wrote:
>
>> I simply asked you to remove the modified copy of my example code
>> from distribution because you have not only made it incompatible with
>> my toolset, but you have made it require a competitors toolset. You
>> failed to mention this in all of our previous correspondance.
>
>
> It's totally reasonable for Dave to ask that HIS code be kept compatible
> with the toolset he makes his living (partly) by selling. It's a
> reminder that 'free' software, of whatever variety, actually represents
> someone else's time and effort.
>
> If you want to create an open- source filesystem, you'd best start with
> something already open- source. There are a few around; you can probably
> extract the requisite code from the Linux or FreeDOS source. And I'm
> sure the work involved in porting it to an 8051 will not be trivial.

Agreed. I've done business with Dave in the
past and he's a stand-up guy. His products
work and are priced very reasonably. If Murray
could port his work over to Dave's compiler
and release it with Dave's blessings, it would
be a win-win solution.


From: Jonathan Kirwan on 8 Aug 2005 12:27
On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 13:35:14 GMT,
Dave.Dunfield(a)use.techsupport.link.on.my.website (Dave Dunfield)
wrote:

>>Sorry Guy's. I made evey effort to get it all squared up. Duh, I fell
>>straight into that one. He's withdrawn it and I'm now expecting legal
>>action.
>
>>Magnanimity only pays for someone else. I Give Up!
>
>I would not normally go into this in public, however since you have
>done so, I would like to set the record straight:
>
>I did not say anything about legal action.
>
>I simply asked you to remove the modified copy of my example code
>from distribution because you have not only made it incompatible with
>my toolset, but you have made it require a competitors toolset. You
>failed to mention this in all of our previous correspondance.
>
>Regards,
>Dave Dunfield
>
>For the record, here is the entire text of the message I sent to Murry
>earlier today.
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Murry,
>
>In all of your correspondance, this is the first time you have mentioned
>that you are making the code specific to the Kiel compiler. Since you indicated
>that you are a customer, I had assumed that you were using my compiler.
>
>Keil is a competitor, and you are essentiually forcing people to use a
>competitor instead of my own product. This is not acceptable. Please stop
>distribution of this modified code.
>
>Regards,
>Dave
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your desire that the modifications of your code be at least compatible
with your compiler are quite reasonable. But since this has been
aired now in public I've a couple of questions which I believe are
fair to ask. (I'm in an ornery mood, this morning? Perhaps.)

No need to answer them, if you feel that an extended discussion here
is inappropriate -- in that case, these will just lay on the table, as
it were:

(1) Who was the professional in this situation, Dave? I accept that
Murray did not mention Keil in his correspondence to you. But why
didn't you ask? It seems to me, an outsider of this relationship,
that if something like this slips between the cracks, so to speak,
then the fact that it did lays more to your error than his. His
standard of care is less than yours, I believe. Of course, regardless
of this question, I do think your position is a reasonable one. I'm
just wondering how _you_ let this slip through without being asked.

(2) Let's say that Murray had, instead, developed a single set of
source code from your FAT12 MDCFS code that was able to be compiled on
both your compiler AND under Keil's, as well. In other words, it used
#if type statements to allow it to compiler for either product. Would
this then still remain a problem for you? In other words, would you
_require_ that the result of Murray's efforts _also_ be incompatible
with your competition? Because if that is the case, it seems to me to
place an even greater emphasis on my first question.

I think the letter you presented was very clear and given that you had
no idea that it was being ported to Keil as well as being enhanced,
quite understandable. I'm just not sure why you let this one get so
far away from your interest without ever asking a question that
probably should have been asked. You are the professional one, held
to the higher standard, in this partnership -- from my otherwise
ignorant perspective.

Jon
From: Murray R. Van Luyn on 8 Aug 2005 16:56
No, I'm sorry Dave but I'm not letting you play your game. Remember our
little discussion about freedom?

I sent Dave a link to the completed code 1 full month ago. For 30 days he
has also had the link to my website where the Keil 8051 code was advertised
as 'coming soon'. I asked that he take a good look at it and have me fix
anything he wasn't happy with.

"Go ahead and publish your work"

I have also previously mentioned to Dave that I write freeware code that I
distribute from my site and that all of this code is for Keil C. I went into
great detail about how I felt about the people at Keil too. I have never
mentioned Dave's compiler. Not once. This was not a simple misunderstanding.

The second I finally use Dave's permission to distribute my 'significantly
unique work' he suddenly decides that I've deceived him all this time. No
Dave I will not modify the code to suit and sell your compilers as you have
now demanded.

I have made my intentions absolutely clear at all times. I mentioned that it
would be freeware and available to anyone for any purpose, both commercial
and non commercial.

The only people that have lost out are the prospective users of the code
that I worked about 1 full month on. It all boils down to filthy love of
money. You can have that stuff Dave. Look what it does to people.

Regards,
Murray R. Van Luyn.

"Dave Dunfield" <Dave.Dunfield(a)use.techsupport.link.on.my.website> wrote in
message news:4gJJe.711$Dd.2544(a)newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
> >Sorry Guy's. I made evey effort to get it all squared up. Duh, I fell
> >straight into that one. He's withdrawn it and I'm now expecting legal
> >action.
>
> >Magnanimity only pays for someone else. I Give Up!
>
> I would not normally go into this in public, however since you have
> done so, I would like to set the record straight:
>
> I did not say anything about legal action.
>
> I simply asked you to remove the modified copy of my example code
> from distribution because you have not only made it incompatible with
> my toolset, but you have made it require a competitors toolset. You
> failed to mention this in all of our previous correspondance.
>
> Regards,
> Dave Dunfield
>
> For the record, here is the entire text of the message I sent to Murry
> earlier today.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------
> Murry,
>
> In all of your correspondance, this is the first time you have mentioned
> that you are making the code specific to the Kiel compiler. Since you
indicated
> that you are a customer, I had assumed that you were using my compiler.
>
> Keil is a competitor, and you are essentiually forcing people to use a
> competitor instead of my own product. This is not acceptable. Please stop
> distribution of this modified code.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------
>
> --
> Dunfield Development Systems http://www.dunfield.com
> Low cost software development tools for embedded systems
> Software/firmware development services Fax:613-256-5821
>


From: Dave Dunfield on 8 Aug 2005 17:29
Hi Jon,

>Your desire that the modifications of your code be at least compatible
>with your compiler are quite reasonable. But since this has been
>aired now in public I've a couple of questions which I believe are
>fair to ask. (I'm in an ornery mood, this morning? Perhaps.)

>No need to answer them, if you feel that an extended discussion here
>is inappropriate -- in that case, these will just lay on the table, as
>it were:

I agree that this should be put to rest, however in the light of recent
activities, I will provide brief responses:

>(1) Who was the professional in this situation, Dave? I accept that
>Murray did not mention Keil in his correspondence to you. But why
>didn't you ask? It seems to me, an outsider of this relationship,
>that if something like this slips between the cracks, so to speak,
>then the fact that it did lays more to your error than his. His
>standard of care is less than yours, I believe. Of course, regardless
>of this question, I do think your position is a reasonable one. I'm
>just wondering how _you_ let this slip through without being asked.

For several reasons:

The inital contact came from the support channel on my web site, and
the individual identified himself as one of my customers - I did make
the error of assuming he was using my tools, as it was not indicated
otherwise.

The original MDCFS.C is very generic, not targeted to a particular
processor, and barely targeted at my tools (the disk read/write
examples given in the distribution are inline Micro-C/86 assembly,
but otherwise the program is fairly standard). It seemed reasonable
that he would keep it that way.

And frankly, it never occured to me ... I've granted use of bits of my
source code to hundreds of people (most anyone who asks), and this
is he first time someone has tried to lock my tools out of the results.

But your point is well taken, I will indeed be more dilligent in the future.


>(2) Let's say that Murray had, instead, developed a single set of
>source code from your FAT12 MDCFS code that was able to be compiled on
>both your compiler AND under Keil's, as well. In other words, it used
>#if type statements to allow it to compiler for either product. Would
>this then still remain a problem for you? In other words, would you
>_require_ that the result of Murray's efforts _also_ be incompatible
>with your competition? Because if that is the case, it seems to me to
>place an even greater emphasis on my first question.

I would not have a problem with that, in fact in correspondance with him
this morning, I suggested that either a) he could release it in a generic
form similar to the original code, or b) I would help him if required to make
it compatible with both toolsets. Unfortunately he has chosen to close that
door.


>I think the letter you presented was very clear and given that you had
>no idea that it was being ported to Keil as well as being enhanced,
>quite understandable. I'm just not sure why you let this one get so
>far away from your interest without ever asking a question that
>probably should have been asked. You are the professional one, held
>to the higher standard, in this partnership -- from my otherwise
>ignorant perspective.

Up until yesterday, it was all very friendly and I wasn't worried about it.
When I realized he had locked out my tools, I asked for it to be removed,
figuring that we would probably work something out later ...

Regarding your original question "Who was the professional in this situation?",
I can only say to please take a look at the comments that he has posted about
me on his web site and draw your own conclusion.

This is as far as this should go in a public forum - if anyone wishes futther
clairification of my position, please contact me privately.

Regards,

Dave

--
Dunfield Development Systems http://www.dunfield.com
Low cost software development tools for embedded systems
Software/firmware development services Fax:613-256-5821

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Couldnt read MT8888
Next: S1D13700 Grayscale configuration